It was Alan Simpson. I know this guy won't run for president for reasons of age, and wouldn't stand a chance of your party nominating him anyway. But if he did, I'd campaign for him in a microsecond.
I have for many years been a major fan of Simpson. Not wanting to get georgeob's hopes up I have also been a major fan of Gary Hart.
I think (or at least, hope), that had Simpson shown some interest in the nomination in 1999, he might have gotten it. I'll concede he lacks the smarmy pious quality that American political candidates (of both parties) somehow feel the need to put on. As a result he might have run afoul of the lunatic element of the party.
I think Gary Hart has shown evidence of real wisdon since the end of his political career. However, I also believe his former political ambition masked it very well.
my a2k signature line for some years was a quote by Simpson
something to the effect of
"If a man has integrity, nothing else matters; he doesn't have integrity, nothing else matters"
dyslexia wrote:my a2k signature line for some years was a quote by Simpson
something to the effect of
"If a man has integrity, nothing else matters; he doesn't have integrity, nothing else matters"
It IS a good phrase, and very reminiscent of Simpson. Sadly, I believe that, for most of us, our virtues vary a bit from day to day and from situation to situation. Sometimes it is also hard to distinguish between standing firm for a matter of principle and mere childish belligerence. I have done both, and always was mindful of my supposed integrity.
Cheney is a good guy, and Simpson probably is as well, but not a serious contender for high office at any time. Cheney is not manipulating Iraq to make money and it is silly to suggest it. I posted 7 logical reasons for Cheney changing his mind on Page 2, none of them having to do with oil.
Back to Thomas' point -- I do wish I could confidently explain the errors of the Bush administration and understand the degree to which they arose from faulty analysis; illusion; the unanticipated side effects of the interplay of strong personalities; malevolance; or other factors. Sadly I don't - the best I believe we can do is assess the relative likelihood of some scenarios.
I am also mindful that the political critics of their policy, both in this country and abroad, have not themselves put their own ideas (if they have them) to the test of history. It is evident that the many conflicts and challenges that beset the world exist independently of our failure in Iraq, and that solutions for them, arising elsewhere, are not yet evident.
There are lessons to be learned from all of this and I am fearful that we may learn the wrong ones from it.
okie wrote:Cheney is a good guy, and Simpson probably is as well, but not a serious contender for high office at any time. Cheney is not manipulating Iraq to make money and it is silly to suggest it. I posted 7 logical reasons for Cheney changing his mind on Page 2, none of them having to do with oil.
Do you believe that these assertions in any way add to our understanding of an issue that, at the core of it, is unknowable.
I think they add more than groundless speculation. I posted what I believe are far more applicable reasons than Cheney's oil interests, 7 of them. It all boils down to personal integrity and character of politicians, and that is why I voted for Bush Cheney in the first place. I believe them to have much more personal character than the opposition had. This is based on watching politics and politicians for a good long time.
During Clinton's administration, there was speculation that Clinton created a national monument in SW Utah to lock up high BTU coal reserves on the Kaiparowitz Plateau, in return for campaign contributions / money from the Lippo group. We already know Clinton took illegal foreign money, so such would be no surprise, and we already know Clinton's personal character, so that would not be inconsistent, but we probably will never know, will we? I doubt speculating about it accomplishes much without more real tangible evidence.
It all boils down to personal character. We know we went into Afghanistan without any oil motivations, but some have claimed it was about a pipeline, but I don't think that theory holds much water.
dyslexia wrote:I have for many years been a major fan of Simpson. Not wanting to get georgeob's hopes up I have also been a major fan of Gary Hart.
You really are a very conflicted person, aren't you? You were also a Goldwater man, a conservative, and now you seem to support the opposite. Huh????
okie wrote:dyslexia wrote:I have for many years been a major fan of Simpson. Not wanting to get georgeob's hopes up I have also been a major fan of Gary Hart.
You really are a very conflicted person, aren't you? You were also a Goldwater man, a conservative, and now you seem to support the opposite. Huh????
You seem to be a very confused person Okie. perhaps some day you might recognize that life is far more colourful than your one dimensional, black vs white analysis.
Yes, I do believe you human beings should believe in a few basic principles. As a matter of fact, if you don't stand for anything, you will fall for anything. So yes, you seem confused.
okie wrote:Yes, I do believe you human beings should believe in a few basic principles. As a matter of fact, if you don't stand for anything, you will fall for anything. So yes, you seem confused.
and you, for all intents and purposes, seem an idiot. A simplistic monolithic idiot. But, damnit Okie you come up with the most creative comments. i especially love "
if you don't stand for anything, you will fall for anything" that's a real humdinger there okie. Do you stay up nights thinking those comments up?
I don't care how old and fuddy duddy the saying might seem to you, dyslexia, but it might be worth your while to consider its wisdom. Some people seem to think they become enlightened by painting everything into a gray area, instead of black and white, but I think the pendulum has gone way too far in that direction. Yes, I would recommend a few good principles to you that are safe to believe.
I happen to think it weird that you support politicians that advocate completely opposite positions and principles. That seems highly confusing.
georgeob1 wrote:Back to Thomas' point -- I do wish I could confidently explain the errors of the Bush administration and understand the degree to which they arose from faulty analysis; illusion; the unanticipated side effects of the interplay of strong personalities; malevolance; or other factors. Sadly I don't - the best I believe we can do is assess the relative likelihood of some scenarios.
I am also mindful that the political critics of their policy, both in this country and abroad, have not themselves put their own ideas (if they have them) to the test of history. It is evident that the many conflicts and challenges that beset the world exist independently of our failure in Iraq, and that solutions for them, arising elsewhere, are not yet evident.
There are lessons to be learned from all of this and I am fearful that we may learn the wrong ones from it.
Quote:faulty analysis; illusion; the unanticipated side effects of the interplay of strong personalities; malevolance; or other factors.
George - am clear on all factors you list except for malevolence; what did you have in mind?
And btw, are VP Cheney's EKG / brain MRI classified matters? Word is he's had any number of minor strokes - and am very reliably told that can profoundly affect critical faculties. On ex-DoD Sec. Rumsfeld the less said the better - and I remember his first tour around that barn in Vietnam days.
georgeob1 wrote:I think (or at least, hope), that had Simpson shown some interest in the nomination in 1999, he might have gotten it.
1999, huh. Wasn't this the year you California Republicans dismissed Peter Ueberroth's run for governor? (Speaking of Republicans I'd like to see run for president...)
georgeob1 wrote:There are lessons to be learned from all of this and I am fearful that we may learn the wrong ones from it.
Here's another point we can agree on.
By 'malevolence' I meant any of the potential motivating factors based on personal gain or the like - such as Thomas suggested. I don't think Thomas' scenario is likely, but I can't definitely exclude it either.
I have heard from several third hand sources that Cheney has been a changed man since his first heart attack. I, of course, can't assess the validity or significance of that.
I have always liked and admired Don Rumsfield: he was a Naval Aviator, after all. Moreover anyone who could come up with "Old Europe" can't be all bad ! He has a strong personality and was faced with an entirely proper challenge of transforming the military to meet post Cold War needs after the neglect of the Clinton years. It is entirely possible that, caught up in the bureaucratic struggles attendant to that formidable task, he ignored some good advice about managing the aftermath of the military conflict.
In addition it appears the post conflict issue was one of the absence of any strategy or critical analysis of what might happen at all. That omission lies with the State Department (Colin Powell) and more importantly with the White House itself. Errors such as this always appear inexplicable in retrospect. (Why did Athens continue the war with Sparta and invade Sicily? Why did Napoleon believe he could hold Russia? Why did he waste so much energy trying to put his brother on the throne in Spain? Why did France in 1910 conclude a treaty with Russia that itself made any forthcoming crisis in Europe unstable and impossible to resolve short of war? Why did the U.S. foolishly get involved in WWI ? Why did the Nazis fall into the trap of Stalingrad? Why didn't the Japanese launch a third attack at Pearl Harbor and strike the shipyard, drydocks and repair facilities? Why did the Japanese arm their second wave of aircraft for an attack on Midway when they hadn't yet located the U.S. carriers? etc.)
Thomas wrote:georgeob1 wrote:I think (or at least, hope), that had Simpson shown some interest in the nomination in 1999, he might have gotten it.
1999, huh. Wasn't this the year you California Republicans dismissed Peter Ueberroth's run for governor? (Speaking of Republicans I'd like to see run for president...)
Yes it was. You are probably right about the likely result for Simpson.
I agree that Ueberroth would have been a very good governor and perhaps more. A very sane man, he walked away from the political madness after that. It took nearly a decade of mismanagement for Californians to wake up -- now we have a Hollywood version of ueberroth.
